State meeting

[HoustonRef]

Unbelievable that a clinician at the state meeting either doesn't know a simple rule or elects to give his own personal interpretation(which is completely wrong) to room full of officials there to learn.
"we say "crown" but realistically if they use any part of the helmet to initiate contact then we have 9-1-3"...lol

[Cowman52]

 Me think you might have not got the entire content of his statement.

[TxSkyBolt]

Unbelievable that a clinician at the state meeting either doesn't know a simple rule or elects to give his own personal interpretation(which is completely wrong) to room full of officials there to learn.
"we say "crown" but realistically if they use any part of the helmet to initiate contact then we have 9-1-3"...lol

Did you ask him any clarifying questions?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HoustonRef]

I got the content from his statement.

After last time when the same guy was so emphatic about having both feet on or within 5 yards on KOs and when everyone was trying to tell him he was wrong but he would not give in, I learned to not ask for his clarification.

[TXMike]

That is pretty funny right there.    That guy has never said that about KO'S.    I am pretty sure there is even a PowerPoint out there with a diagram showing the requirement is to have 1 foot on or within 5 yards of the restraining line.   As for the "crown" of helmet, if we asked 10 people what the crown is we would get 10 different answers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HoustonRef]

I disagree. This absolutely happened in regards to the KO rule.

10 different officials may have 10 different definitions of the crown, but that might be because our clinicians are giving the wrong definition. Clinicians need to be correct and also deliver one message across the state.

Maybe he should look for a diagram of a helmet to help him understand what/where the crown is.

[TexDoc]

On a different topic, we did get two wrong mechanics clarifications at one of the breakouts.  Not huge, but one would hope the information would be correct.

[Joe Stack]

"we say "crown" but realistically if they use any part of the helmet to initiate contact then we have 9-1-3"...lol

I would have worded this a different way, but when any part of the helmet is used to initiate contact, you do have a personal foul and almost always an ejection for a flagrant act. I guess there could be a circumstance where the latter (can't see one for the former, but argue away) is not the case, but I can't come up with one now. At any rate, if you don't want to call this targeting, fine, but the result (other than replay in college, I guess) is virtually the same.

I would question the person who said this with regard to preciseness of language, but I wouldn't assert he didn't know what the hell he was talking about.

[TXMike]

Unbelievable that a clinician at the state meeting either doesn't know a simple rule or elects to give his own personal interpretation(which is completely wrong) to room full of officials there to learn.
"we say "crown" but realistically if they use any part of the helmet to initiate contact then we have 9-1-3"...lol

   Is there a part of the helmet a player could use to initiate contact with that would not be the crown of the helmet?

[BankerRef]

   Is there a part of the helmet a player could use to initiate contact with that would not be the crown of the helmet?

I would say the obvious answer is yes.  Otherwise why not just say helmet and leave "crown" out of it? 

By Rule:
Crown = top
Note 1 indicator for 9-1-3 = lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.

I think we say crown because we mean crown and it is further reinforced by stating that there must be an indicator of targeting and further describing what that means. 

[TXMike]

1 - How is the crown of the helmet described?

2 - consider this play:  Receiver A88 jumped for a pass that was clearly overthown.  DB  B22 launched and leaped forward 3 yards before hitting A88 in the middle of the back with his facemask.  Ruling?

[first_year_guy]

We were taught to lead with the screws (face mask/front of helmet), I think that's standard practice and not the crown

[HoustonRef]

1 - How is the crown of the helmet described?

2 - consider this play:  Receiver A88 jumped for a pass that was clearly overthown.  DB  B22 launched and leaped forward 3 yards before hitting A88 in the middle of the back with his facemask.  Ruling?

1 - top of the helmet, similar to where a crown would sit on your head.

2 - depending on the timing of the action: PF late hit 15yd no DQ

But to elaborate on your early comment about if there is a part of the helmet one can initiate contact with...you can with the front, either side and even the back, just not the crown(top)

Pretty simple stuff

[TXMike]

After last time when the same guy was so emphatic about having both feet on or within 5 yards on KOs and when everyone was trying to tell him he was wrong but he would not give in, I learned to not ask for his clarification.

  Attached is the slide he used in the training presentations when the rule was changed.  Sure you heard right?

[attachment deleted by admin]

[HoustonRef]

  Attached is the slide he used in the training presentations when the rule was changed.  Sure you heard right?

Yep along with 300+ other Houston officials. Maybe he was trying to set up the Houston Chapter so San Antonio might get a game or two after the first round.

[TXMike]

Yep along with 300+ other Houston officials. Maybe he was trying to set up the Houston Chapter so San Antonio might get a game or two after the first round.

Funny Tommy Moore never mentioned that.  ;-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk